Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. 1. Those entirely within RAA 14A <br />2. Those predominantly within RAA 14A but partly within 14 B, and <br /> <br />t< " <br />-..l <br />W <br />N <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Those predominantly within 14B. <br /> <br />Next, streams within these groups were divided into classes on the basis <br />of watershed area. Within each size class, the median area was noted. <br />The stream reach having a watershed area approximating the median, how- <br />ever, cannot be taken to be the candidate stream for simulation of a <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />representative reach for its class. At least in the arid pori tons of the <br />United States, there is too much vari at ion in the amount of water <br />actually flowing through a given reach, regardless of the watershed size.. <br />This is due to long-established diversions made for agriculture, muni- <br />cipal and industrial use, etc. <br /> <br />The impact of such diversions, obviously, must be taken into account. <br />This leads to further stratification in terms of stream flow. In this <br /> <br />study, the CIFSG used the long-term average annual fl ow obtai ned from <br />U.S.G.S. Water Supply Papers. (5) <br /> <br />For example, within Group I, Class C there are 22 watersheds, ranging in <br /> <br /> <br />size from 500-999 square miles. The median is approximately 645 square <br /> <br /> <br />miles. The Piedra River near Arboles, N.M., with a watershed area of 660 <br /> <br /> <br />square miles, might appear to be a suitable candidate stream. But the <br /> <br /> <br />average annual flow of streams in Group I, Class C ranges from 4.5 to 846 <br /> <br /> <br />cFs. These flows can be broken down as follows: <br /> <br />20 <br />